A. Purport of Article 9(1)10 of the Trademark Act

(b) The meaning of a trademark that is likely to cause confusion with another person's goods or business;

C. Whether there is a concern about the possibility of mistake and confusion as a letter-based business operated by the 'Thoki Group'

A. The purport of the provision of Article 9(1)10 of the Trademark Act is that where a trademark is identical or similar to a well-known trademark which is widely recognized among consumers, even if the designated goods are different from each other, the use of the trademark is recognized as being produced and sold by a well-known trademark right holder or a person with a special relationship in light of the modern industrial structure in which many different kinds of different kinds of goods are produced and sold in the field of different industries, and thus, the trademark registration may be refused because it might cause consumers to mistake or confuse the place of goods, business, etc.

B. A trademark that is likely to cause confusion with another person's goods or business (including a license plate) refers to a trademark that misleads a person engaged in goods or business, a person engaged in goods or a user of goods, a person responsible for handling, or a seller, etc., and thus, a trademark that is not likely to cause confusion or confusion with another person's goods or business should be registered as a trademark because the trademark right holder of a well-known trademark or a person in a special relationship with him/her is not likely to cause confusion or confusion with another person's goods or business.

C. The term “gold” of the Libych Group cannot be said to cause confusion or confusion to the general consumers in the designated Libych Business of the Libych Group without examining whether the Libych Group is operating the Libych Business in the form of business operated by the Libych Group, that is, the designated Libyp Group, in the form of business operated by the Libych Group, or any other similar business.

Article 9(1)10 of the Trademark Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 80Hu63 delivered on September 9, 1980, 80Hu63 delivered on August 20, 1985, 82Hu27 delivered on October 14, 1986, and 83Hu77 delivered on October 14, 1986

[Defendant-Appellee] Patent Attorney Cho Sung-hee et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office's appellate trial decision No. 651 decided Oct. 31, 1986; and

The original adjudication is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office.

With respect to the grounds of appeal by the applicant’s attorney:

Article 9 (1) 10 of the Trademark Act provides that a trademark registration which may cause confusion with another person's goods or business recognized remarkably among consumers shall not be granted in cases where a trademark is identical or similar to the so-called well-known trademark whose designated goods are recognized remarkably among consumers, although the use of such trademark is different from each other's designated goods, it shall be allowed for consumers to refuse the registration of the trademark on the ground that the use of such trademark is likely to cause confusion or confusion with the place of goods or business (see Supreme Court Decisions 80Hu63, Sep. 9, 1980; 82Hu14, Apr. 23, 1985; 82Hu27, Aug. 20, 1985; 198Hu187, Mar. 11, 1986; 197Hu1864, Jun. 17, 1986; 2007Hu1784, Apr. 18, 1986; 2007

However, since a trademark which is likely to cause confusion with another person's goods or business (including a license mark) refers to a trademark which misleads a person engaged in goods or business, a person engaged in goods, a user of goods, a person responsible for handling, or a seller, etc., and even considering the modern industrial structure in which a specific trademark is well-known and a number of enterprises produce and sell different kinds of goods in the field of different industries, a trademark which is not likely to cause confusion or confusion with another person's goods' place of goods or business should be allowed to be registered.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below maintained the decision of refusing the registration of the Sluri Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun Slun S. Slun S.

The decision of the court below, without examining this, that the court below judged that this letter might cause mistake and confusion as a letter-based business operated by the Libybyp Group shall not be deemed to have erred by misapprehending the legal principles under Article 9 (1) 10 of the Trademark Act, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations. The arguments are reasonable.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office Appeal Trial Office, which is the original judgment. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon In-bok (Presiding Justice)